|
Grex > Coop8 > #52: Adding .yeswrite and .nowrite to the write program | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 315 responses total. |
brighn
|
|
response 100 of 315:
| 
Jun 21 19:50 UTC 1996 |
It seems like everyone's agreed taht the files are a good idea...
so what's the next step? WHo needs to do what?
|
ajax
|
|
response 101 of 315:
|
Jun 21 21:37 UTC 1996 |
Not everyone's agreed to it...much of the debate has died down, as people
for and against declared their opinions previously. STeve, for example,
is an outspoken opponent of this idea, and he hasn't mentioned a change
of heart in co-op.
Jenna, I'm glad you're posting your updates; I think it may sway some
people who are on the fence.
The next step is a board vote on the idea, followed by trying to get it
implemented.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 102 of 315:
|
Jun 22 16:27 UTC 1996 |
I dont like the idea either, it adds to cliquishness. Out in the real
world you cant put walls around yourself that only your friends can get
in. We need to be stressing the idea of how to build a community here
and how to get people TO interact. Providing unneccesary tools to
prevent interaction on a selective basis defeats that purpose.
Sure, I suppose it might seem nice if there was some magical way you
could go out on the street and only come into contact with those you wish
to come into contact with, but thats not the real world. And it would be
a pretty sorry world if it was. We need accessibility. We need
community. If you dont want to talk to anyone fine, you can turn your
!mesgs off but being able to do so selectively, would harm grex
immensly. Before long everyone will have what could be called "enemies"
lists and we wont have a community, we will have a bunch of cliques.
Grex is an open access system, and you just accept the good with the
bad. These commands would be a terrible idea that could start a
fundamental change in the nature of grex.
|
scott
|
|
response 103 of 315:
|
Jun 22 17:35 UTC 1996 |
Well, we *do* put up walls in the real world. We live in "safe"
neighborhoods, distant enough from "bad" areas so that criminals don't tend
to bother us. We get caller ID for our telephones. We don't open junk mail.
We might have a little peephole in the front door so we can see who is there.
And I think we do need .yes and/or .no files.
|
scg
|
|
response 104 of 315:
|
Jun 22 18:01 UTC 1996 |
And to extend that a little bit, I'd also point out that very few people will
go up to random people on the street and try to start conversations. Even
fewer will refuse to go away when they find that the other person isn't
interested. Those that do are generally drunk.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 105 of 315:
|
Jun 22 18:01 UTC 1996 |
Lets see...#103...
1. I live in the city, there are no "safe" neighborhoods.
2. You can dial *67 to override caller id, so its useless
3. Peepholes dont prevent burglaries
People "attempt" to build walls and find to their frustration that no
walls are unpenetrateable.
If someone wants a login on grex, he accepts to be part of the
ENTIRE grex community. There shouldnt be .yes/.no commands for the exact
same reason that there are no closed (other than staff) confs here.
Because its counter to the concept and purpose of grex. People who would
choose to isolate themselves within grex using these commands would be
using grex for their own purposes, and not contributing to grex as a whole.
Grex's long term future is dependent on convincing users to be a part of
the community that exsists here. These commands would give new users the
ability to interact not with the "grex" community, but only with the
people in their clique. This is why we have no closed confs.
Cliqueshness KILLS communal atmospheres!
Besides, if someone is bent on harrassing a user and ends up on that
person's .no list, they'd simply create another login and another and
another. These commands are simply not the right answer to the problem
|
scott
|
|
response 106 of 315:
|
Jun 22 21:31 UTC 1996 |
But if the .nofile doesn't work, then the .yesfile does... No matter how many
new logins a harrasser can create, not a one of them will be in a .yesfile.
Grex *isn't* the anarchy that kerouac is portraying. It is more of an anarchy
than where he lives (you do have police, right?), but not a lawless anarchy.
If you'll recall the freekman incident, staff ended up making those responsible
get into trouble in the *real* world... which is what happens to at least some
of the serious abusers on systems like Grex.
And I fail to see how .yes/.no files will make somebody more isolated than
"mesg n". Those people end up in a private channel in party, and I don't
recall anybody bitching about those recently.
|
tsty
|
|
response 107 of 315:
|
Jun 22 21:34 UTC 1996 |
i am not particularily partial to shutting someone out as a generality
and yet there is some really limited ## of ppl who can effectively
destroy someone else's participation here.
if a perp went to the bother of running newuser *again* for purposes
which included avoiding a .nowrite file, (which outta be permed 600),
that would appear to be prima facia evidence of 'stalking.'
or something close enough to it as to be indistinguishable from it.
having a .yeswrite file on teh other hand is far too much isolation.
i agree to support a .nowrite file implementation but NOT a .yeswrite file.
i would also suggest, for starters particularily, a fixed number
of allowed entries in .nowrite .... say, oh, four.
how's that?
|
robh
|
|
response 108 of 315:
|
Jun 23 03:00 UTC 1996 |
kerouac seems to think that we cannot allow these features to
be added because the real world isn't like that.
Since when is cyberspace the real world?
Since when do we *want* cyberspace to be more like the real world
if it means making people uncomfortable?
|
adbarr
|
|
response 109 of 315:
|
Jun 23 03:08 UTC 1996 |
Kerouac, I disagree. If an individual wants to be free of interruption
here that should be their choice. I don't see that as limiting the rest
of the community. Email is available. Someone could even enter an item
saying "Please call your mom!" I think the staff should program as much
power as possible for the individual user. Of course, I do think minors
should be in bed by 11:00 p.m. ;-)
|
srw
|
|
response 110 of 315:
|
Jun 23 20:35 UTC 1996 |
I also disagree strongly wth kerouac. I disagree halfway with TS.
I think we should have both, if someone will code them.
I do not think either will harm Grex in any material way, and I think they
will be a great boon to those who are being unfairly harrassed.
Furthermore, if I may be so bold, I believe it is the case that *Most* of the
people responding here agree with me. STeve, Kerouac, and 0.5* tsty are
exceptions. There are probably some more, but the majority seems to favor
these.
They still won't happen unless someone volunteers, but I'd feel very bad for
Grex's treatment of those harrassed like Jenna if we actually had the software
and refused to run it. I would be embarrassed for Grex, in fact.
|
remmers
|
|
response 111 of 315:
|
Jun 24 00:11 UTC 1996 |
I think kerouac's reasoning is simply silly.
As I've said earlier, I think .yeswrite would be a sensible option
to provide, on the grounds that it would give users who wish to do
so the ability to control their chat environment. I've no strong
feeling one way or the other on .nowrite, simply because I think
it's less effectual -- a true twit could get around somebody's
.nowrite file by running newuser and creating a new id.
I'd point out that users already have the equivalent of .nowrite
for conferencing (the "twit filter") and have for a long time. It's
less well-known, but people *also* have the equivalent of .yeswrite
and .nowrite for mail - you can set up your account to reject mail
from specific id's, or reject all mail *except* from id's that you
specify. I don't see anybody getting bent out of shape about having
those capabilities around, so why not be consistent and provide
them for chatting as well?
|
brighn
|
|
response 112 of 315:
|
Jun 24 07:37 UTC 1996 |
LEt's say I have caller ID, Kerouac.
Someone enters *67 first.
What do I do? What great response can I possibly have
to my caller ID box telling me the caller is unknown?
Wait, Richard, I have an idea! I could...
not answer the phone!
If cyberspace were the real world:
Imagine everybody in a small town all talking to each other
at once, and able to flip from one end of town to the other in a blink,
and everyone talknig at the same volume but at varying speeds,
and you can't see anyone until they pop into the town, but once
they're anywhere in town you can see them and they you.
Honestly, Richard, the analogy of cyberspace to the real world is
impossible to make. For a long time, I wasn't on speaking terms
with Morgaene. When I saw her at GNO, I hid behind Jenna or Valerie.
I can't do that on-line. (In this case, we didn't harass each other online,
we let each other be, and in fact we finally united in Party one day
over a common enemy, someone being a major jerk and insulting our friends,
someone whose handle is a famous beat poet...)
|
kerouac
|
|
response 113 of 315:
|
Jun 24 15:25 UTC 1996 |
I'm not saying that there arent good uses for a .yes/.no write file,
but just that its not necessary and could cause more harm than good. You
are being harassed? Turn your !mesgs off.
I'd have less problem with a .no file than a .yes file, because a .yes
file simply contributes to cliquishness. It helps build walls around
small groups of people here and there are already enough ways to do
that. A lot of people use !talk requests because they need legitimate
help. I never turn my !mesgs off because I want to be part of hte
"community" and if I can answer a question or two, I'm more than happy to
try. What if every staff member set up .yes files so ONLY other staff
could contact them? What if say 90% of all regular users did? You are
getting an environment where nobody who knows anything is available to
talk to newer users. Nobody is going to keep their !mesg turned off all
the time because then they'd never hear from their friends, but given a
chance to be selective with a .yes option, they probably would.
I guess its what you want of grex. what Brighn wants is not to be part
of a community of several hundred or thousand users, but to have a board
where he can only come into contact with ten or twenty friends of his.
If you want to do that brighn, set up your own bbs. This is grex! You
either accept the nature of what it is and that it is not a private club
We should all want to be accessible in one way or another.
.yes/.no commands simply are not necessary. For the good purposes such
commands would have, it would cause more problems and contribute to an
environment where nobody talks to anyone who's not their friend and
doesnt happen to be on their .yes list
|
scott
|
|
response 114 of 315:
|
Jun 24 16:06 UTC 1996 |
Quite frankly, just because I don't have a .yes or .no file doesn't mean I
will talk with anybody on the system. Cliques will already exist, it's just
a bit more work. People seem to be doing that work anyway, so why not have
it be easier? And there are people who *do* keep their mesgs off all the
time, even though it isn't the greatest thing to do. Valerie keeps hers off,
which can be a nusicance for other staffers who might want to send an
immediate "Hey - I'm going to reset the router" so that Valerie doesn't try
to do the same thing at the same time. with a .yes file, she could have all
the staffers in there.
|
davel
|
|
response 115 of 315:
|
Jun 24 16:33 UTC 1996 |
I keep my mesgs off all the time. I didn't mind all that much people who
wanted to talk about something specific, either asking for help or talking
about something I'd said in some conference. It was the increasingly large
number of people who basically just wanted to talk but really had (as far as
I could see) nothing to say.
I now keep helper messages on & others off. Adding that capability was really
neat (thanks, Jan or whoever it was!). (But I occasionally consider turning
even them off when I get several consecutive requests along the lines of
"How is telnet implemented" and "Do you know of any really sexy sites on
the net?") I for one would appreciate the ability to allow a few folks
to interrupt me at will while filtering out the sheer static. For me it's
not a big deal, but for some it is. Doesn't seem to me that it's the kind
of thing that will kill Grex off ... though you never *know* ... but if
Grex gets big enough its absence just might do that.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 116 of 315:
|
Jun 24 17:25 UTC 1996 |
I think that it is HIGHLY irresponsible for someone on staff to keep
their !mesgs off all the ime. Keeping them off for a few miinutes here
and there so one canconference uninterrupted is one thing, but to be
deliberately inaccessible at all times is quite another. It is like a
doctor who is on call refusing to wear his beeper in cas4e a patient goes
critical.
What if there was a major security breach and the only staffer on line
was Valerie? How would the user who noticed the breach ocntact her? via
email which she'd read in a week when she gtets caught up with her mailbox?
I know this isnt a written rule, but it seems like comon sense that the
two things one should agree to when agreeing to be on staff on grex are
1. Be accessible 2. Read Coop.
If a staffer is not willing t o keep their !mesg on at least some if not
most of the time, they should resign because they are demostrating
unwillingness to partake in the basic functions of the job.
|
robh
|
|
response 117 of 315:
|
Jun 24 18:30 UTC 1996 |
(a) Valerie has her shell set up such that any mail
she receives is *immediately* sent to her screen. If someone
has an emergency and sends her mail, she'll know almost
instantly.
(b) Staff members are users too, and what they do with their
time online is their own damn business.
|
brighn
|
|
response 118 of 315:
|
Jun 24 20:41 UTC 1996 |
This conversation appears to be getting into ad hominems again.
I'll resist the urge to respond to Richard for the sake of the
rest of the conference, and just say that how a user chooses to
use a public bbs is the business of the user, and if it isn't openly
hurting someone else, it's their business.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 119 of 315:
|
Jun 24 21:05 UTC 1996 |
#117...well I didnt knw you could set your shell like that....that ma kes a
bit of difference. But this is like the related discussion we had over
changing the prompts for !mesg n to optional prompts that are more
acurate and/or friendly. There was strong consensus for this too, but
if Janc doesnt have the time or the inclination to change the code
then it doesnt really matter. I dont think updating the code is a
grex priority these days anyway.
|
scott
|
|
response 120 of 315:
|
Jun 24 21:36 UTC 1996 |
What staffers do with their online persona isn't something Grex or its users
can dictate. The issue of "responsibility" is not as important here, because
nobody gets paid. If we did have a vote that all staffers must have perms
on, then we'd lose at least a few staffers. No kidding about that. We are
lucky to have such talented people giving their time for free, and I'd hate
to get into arguments over how they should use it.
We're all involved in this thing because we *like* it. Being able to change
some settings to make it more convenient to use is our prerogative, just as
it is the prerogative of kerouac or anybody else to use Grex in a way they
find useful. Having somebody bitch about little things like perms, while
obviously enjoying the new hardware that unpaid staffers worked *months* to
set up, is rather insulting.
|
remmers
|
|
response 121 of 315:
|
Jun 24 21:47 UTC 1996 |
Well said.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 122 of 315:
|
Jun 24 22:52 UTC 1996 |
Kerouac, go to your room. And while you're there think some
about what is made available to you here, without fee, and
all the hard work that goes into it.
If you want folks to pay any attention at all to what you
have to say, well, you'd be advised to put more thought
into your comments. If I had to guess your age from your
posts I'd have you at about 10. I want! I want!
|
brighn
|
|
response 123 of 315:
|
Jun 25 01:28 UTC 1996 |
*applauds Mary*
|
rcurl
|
|
response 124 of 315:
|
Jun 25 06:49 UTC 1996 |
In which response did kerouac say "I want! I want!"? I seem to have missed
it. I read him making lots of suggestions, not always consistently, and
arguing for them, perhaps a bit repititiously - but I haven't seen
anything that would call for Mary's characterization.
|